I have the impression that you are trying to paint Jabberwock as a bigot, which seems the sort of thing you deplore about woke cancel culture. — wonderer1
1. Putin's rule has been practically unchallenged by peaceful protests for twenty years.
2. The events of the Ukrainian war have weakened Putin's regime. — Jabberwock
Intelligent, well-informed people have a different view as to how best to resolve the conflict, but we can't just discuss the merits of each approach, those differing from the mainstream have to uniformed, biased, — Isaac
Or racist xenophobes. — unenlightened
I've no interest in arguing with those. Likewise the terminally stupid, the uncaring, the insane... There are lots of categories of people who might have an opinion about how to resolve this conflict against whom I've no wish to argue, whose opinions I've no wish to hear. — Isaac
But you sure like calling them out, o fair-minded one! — unenlightened
The argument here is not all people's opinions are equal. Of course they're not. It's an argument about what we ought take as reasonable grounds to take an opinion seriously. — Isaac
The argument here is not all people's opinions are equal. — Isaac
What argument?The rest of us call it ad hominem fallacy. — unenlightened
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired — Jonathan Swift
I have to admit that I have seen no reasonable evidence in this thread of any poster being terminally stupid, uncaring or insane. — unenlightened
do continue to engage with [them] — unenlightened
you use these sorts of epithets on a regular basis in an attempt to undermine people — unenlightened
the inconsistency I see in your posting: you are very free with these negative labels, but there is no good reason ever to address them to your interlocutors on the boards, rather you should point them out to the mods so that they can be remove the people we don't want to waste time talking to and the sensible fair-minded decent people can discuss freely. — unenlightened
Those arguing for continued war are not arguing "Yeah, war! Let's have more of that!" They are arguing that we unfortunately, reluctantly must have war, it's our only option. They'd love nothing better than a world without war, but their hands are tied and reality is such that it cannot be avoided.
Those arguing for non-war options are not arguing the opposite (that they'd love to have a war, but unfortunately our hands are tied and we just cannot). They are arguing that there is a way, that we can resolve conflicts without war, that we can oppose tyranny without having to first move it about the globe by way of border wars.
So the evidence required for each of these positions is different.
The first argument needs to show that war cannot be avoided, in other words, it needs to prove a negative - that no other way works.
The second argument has no such burden, we don't need to prove that war cannot work because no one wants war anyway. War is what we reluctantly accept when all other options are closed. so we don't have to prove a negative, we only have to disprove the opposition's attempts to do so. We only have to show that they've not sufficiently made their case that war is the only option. — Isaac
Supporting that position requires the stronger argument made above, and the facts very clearly do not support that stronger argument, only the weaker one. — Isaac
Nobody finds that blameworthy - few beside the most staunch pacifists claim that they should choose the oppresion over the war. — Jabberwock
that Ukraine in recent years went from autocracy to democracy quickly and by way of popular protests - that is also an ahistorical claim — Jabberwock
You've presented a series of facts which, alone, do not demonstrate anything but your interpretation of what actually happened in one instance. What actually happened in one instance is neither a delimiter nor predictive of what will/could happen in another instance. It would be like me claiming that tall people are likely to hit you on the grounds that a tall person once hit me. — Isaac
Measures of autocracy and democracy are not objective. When Ukraine (or Russia) started being an autocracy and when it stopped are not raw historical facts (which would be things like election methods, political arrest rates, etc). You've already interpreted historical facts in line with your preferred narrative and are attempting to pass off the interpretation as fact. — Isaac
We're not dealing with facts, we're dealing with your preferred story, based on facts. I can't argue against it because it's a perfectly valid story. — Isaac
Nor have I any need to to support my argument.
You, however, to support an argument that war is necessary, have to show that alternatives are impossible (or highly improbable). That can't be shown by simply pointing to one plausible interpretation of events. An argument that war is necessary has to show that other interpretations are all implausible. You have to show that it is impossible to be of the opinion that Ukraine turned from a state similar to Russia's current one, to their current one in a few years. You haven't shown that, you've shown that it is possible to interpreted events in such a way as to suggest not. But no one is arguing that is is not possible to do that. I'm arguing it is not necessary to do that. Do you understand the difference? — Isaac
Nothing you've presented even addresses the argument that it is possible to interpret historical events in such a way as to support the notion that alternatives to ground war can bring about freedom. You've shown it's plausible to think the opposite, not that it's implausible to think anything else. — Isaac
I did not present my views based on one instance. I have quoted many events from the history that support the view I propose. — Jabberwock
Unlike you. — Jabberwock
It was you yourself that proposed democracy indices as a measure of democracy. — Jabberwock
Till now you have flatly refused to do that. — Jabberwock
You demand from your government that it takes a specific course of action instead of the course of action it is taking. To argue for that you have to present an argument that the specific course of action you propose is more likely to have the preferred result than the course taken by them. — Jabberwock
all I have to do is support an argument that war is more likely to produce the preferred results than other courses of action — Jabberwock
I have already explained which historical events support my argument that peaceful revolution in Russia at this time is unlikely. — Jabberwock
I argue against it, because it is an invalid one, for which I gave my reasons. — Jabberwock
Saying 'Oh, I can argue that Ukraine's transition was fast and recent, because I can interpret the facts that way!' has the exact same weight as 'Oh, I can argue that the Moon landing did not happen because I can interpret the facts that way!' — Jabberwock
we have a reason to believe that the taken course of action is likely to produce the effects we expect (as you wrote yourself, it is a perfectly valid story). On the other hand, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the course of action you propose is likely to produce the desired effects, beside your claim that your interpretation of events (which you refuse to share) tells you so. — Jabberwock
Encourage more war - "Putin is weakening and could be overthrown any minute, just a few more bombs and we'll be there."
Encourage political action instead of war - "Putin is strong, it would take many decades to overthrow him" — Isaac
I was referring to your potted history of the USSR. The number of 'instances' you divide this into was not the relvan6part of that paragraph. The relevant part was that it is interpreted. — Isaac
Are you seriously claiming that there exists not a single case of tyranny being overthrown by non-military? Because if not, then my case is already made. If we both agree that such cases exist then that is my argument. It is possible, therefore we ought strive for it. That case is undermined only by two counterarguments; a) it is not even possible, or b) we ought not strive for it. You've argued neither. — Isaac
I proposed no such thing. I proposed "measures of human development", please respond to what I've written, not what you'd like me to have written.
An example might be the Human Freedom Index which had Ukraine ranking 134 in 2014, below Russia at 119. — Isaac
O will do so if you claim that there are no instances at all in history, or that it is impossible. Otherwise we already agree on the facts of my case. We disagree about the conclusion. — Isaac
I presume we'd all rather avoid war. Therefore I only have to argue that it is possible to do so. — Isaac
If I wanted to kill Putin, dropping 10 nuclear bombs on Moscow would be sure to do it. So is all I need to do to prove that increased likelihood of achieving the outcome? Of course not. We want to kill Putin, but we want to do so in the least harmful way (in terms of collateral damage). If you prefer we could set the outcome to be 'freedom for the people of Ukraine with minimum loss of freedom to others'. But under that metric, war has a high(ish) chance of securing freedom, but with massive losses, supporting revolution has a lower chance of securing freedom, but with minimal losses. So which wins? — Isaac
Probability of success is not a sufficient metric, unless your 'preferred results' is wide enough to include avoiding undesirable collateral effects, in which case, you haven't made your case because you've only included 'freedom for Ukraine' as your result. I sincerely hope my government have more concerns than the freedom of Ukrainians.
No, they don't. Look, I'll try and give an example from your post above...
"... at the time where Western decadent societies were being established, Russians were still under equally despotic rule (monarchs and bourgeois factory owners are identical). The period of relative chaos after the Revolutions was quite short-lived and pretty soon the paternal care of Proletariat took over, although it was not so much 'proletariat' in charge as the party's dedicated verchushka. After that were fifty years of the steady party's rule, with a very short period of descent into capitalism under Yeltsin; then Putin came and fortunately strengthened the rule for the people again. The point I am making is that Russians have practically no traditions of decadence and are one of the few countries to overthrow the rule of bourgeois oligarchs, so they can do it again."
... I've not changed any of the facts at all. Just written it from a different perspective. You've not 'explained' anything. You've just told me what your preferred frame is. — Isaac
You've not given a single reason why my story is invalid. Presenting an alternative one isn't an argument that mine is invalid. You have to show that I can't think what I think (and remain coherent), not merely that there's an alternative which is also coherent. — Isaac
No, it doesn't because I can show how it is virtually impossible to believe the moon landings were fake and remain coherent - the number of people who would need to be involved is inconsistent with the number of people who have been shown to be involved with any other conspiracy. It's not complicated. As I've shown above, you giving your preferred account of Russian history is not the same category of fact at all. It's really, really simple - do experts actually think the moon landings were faked? No. Do experts actually think war will be worse for Ukraine than occupation? Yes. That's literally all you need to do to determine which positions are off the 'crazy' end and which are to be taken seriously. — Isaac
It's not that simple if one course of action is going to lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, we don't simple compare on likelihood of success, unless success includes the minimisation of collateral effects, in which case you haven't made your argument at all since you've not included that metric. — Isaac
you are supposed to argue that what the course of action you propose is likely to provide the desired effects. — Jabberwock
If we are tracking transition from autocracy to democracy — Jabberwock
you have to argue that your proposed course of action is likely to achieve that goal. — Jabberwock
The former, because the chance of achieving the latter is low — Jabberwock
the predicted outcomes offset the probabilities, but only to a small degree. — Jabberwock
I understand that you are desperate to show that all perspectives are equal, but the simple truth is they are not. — Jabberwock
Your story is invalid because it does not cohere with the generally accepted view of historical processes. — Jabberwock
Do experts believe that quick and peaceful revolution in Russia leading to its democractization is likely? — Jabberwock
so far we have nothing to compare, because you have failed to present the argument — Jabberwock
We're comparing two options here, It's no good just dismissing one because it's unlikely. What matters is whether it's more likely than the other. — Isaac
For both sides the burden of proof is exactly the same – to show that the expected results of the proposed course of action are more likely than not. Without that it does not matter at all whether the solution would be preferred by both sides, because if it is not likely to happen, it makes no difference. — Jabberwock
It's not about possibility and necessity. It's about "more likely". — neomac
Easy. The 'desired effects' are freedom for Ukrainians with fewer than a hundred thousand dead. Your proposal has zero chance of achieving that, so mine only has to have greater than zero. Are you arguing that mine also has zero, that Russia cannot shake off tyranny? — Isaac
Easy. The 'desired effects' are freedom for Ukrainians with fewer than a hundred thousand dead. Your proposal has zero chance of achieving that, so mine only has to have greater than zero. Are you arguing that mine also has zero, that Russia cannot shake off tyranny? — Isaac
We're not. We're talking about freedom. Freedom is a lot more than just democracy. — Isaac
What goal? 'Avoid war'? Are you seriously arguing that 'continue war' is more likely to avoid war than 'stop war'? — Isaac
So ignoring completely all collateral damage? I suppose the Iraq war was OK by you too then? — Isaac
Ah! The Generally Accepted View™. Owned by the same company as The Facts™ if I recall correctly.
Is there a citation you could share for The Generally Accepted View™, it would sure resolve decades of disagreement between Marxist historians and Western scholars. — Isaac
Who said quick? Measuring against the current death rate in the war and the Russian occupation of Crimea, they've got decades and would still come out on top. Are you arguing that not a single expert in the world thinks Russia could improve a few points (all Ukraine has done) in the next decade or so? — Isaac
Done so already, but again...
According to the Human Freedom Index, Ukraine, just before the Maidan Revolution ranked 134. Russia, at last measure ranked 119.
It is therefore possible for a country to (through non-military action) bring itself to the level of freedom Ukraine now enjoys from the level of freedom Russia now suffers in the space of eight years.
Eight years is also the time over which Russia has occupied Crimea with some few hundred deaths and similar restrictions of freedom currently active in Ukraine (and imposed by Ukraine in Donbas before this latest invasion)
Therefore it is plausible to believe that a country can get from Russia-now to Ukraine-now (in terms of freedom) in the space of eight years, suffering only the death and humanitarian toll seen in Russian-occupied Crimea. — Isaac
These are all historical facts (the human freedom measures, the deaths and humanitarian situation in occupied Crimea). They can be used to support a narrative - one of popular struggle against oppression, anti-war. — Isaac
you have argued for an alternative between 'peaceful protests and military invasion', but that alternative is false and ahistorical — Jabberwock
Of course it is. Sachs's question isn't 'what caused the revolution in Ukraine', it's 'what caused Russia to invade Ukraine'. His answer to that is the threat of foreign interference in Ukraine, his evidence is the foreign interference in the revolution. To demonstrate that point he need only show that there was indeed foreign interference in the revolution. He does not have to show what proportion of the revolution's cause it was because his argument isn't that "Russia were provoked by over 56.98% foreign interference". It is that Russia were provoked by foreign interference. Any value above zero demonstrates that possibility. — Isaac
Depends on the framing. As I said above...
Easy. The 'desired effects' are freedom for Ukrainians with fewer than a hundred thousand dead. Your proposal has zero chance of achieving that, so mine only has to have greater than zero. Are you arguing that mine also has zero, that Russia cannot shake off tyranny? — Isaac
...if you want to put it in terms of likelihood. — Isaac
Sure, if your sole concern is the ability of Ukrainians to vote in an unimpeded election then maybe there'd be an argument about probability, but why the hell would anyone sane have that as their only goal. — Isaac
No, 'greater than zero' is not enough — Jabberwock
If you had a plan that would provide us with global peace without any violence, but the chance of success was 1%, and the 99% was that the world would be plunged into tyranny, then nobody would pursue that course of action, even though the goal was so lofty. — Jabberwock
in this case it is a distinction without a difference. Neither Ukraine was authoritarian a few years ago, nor did it undergo any fast processes over the last few years. — Jabberwock
No, I am arguing that you have failed to provide an argument that your proposed course of action would likely bring the result of avoiding war. — Jabberwock
No, because it failed to provide any positive results — Jabberwock
Oh, so the alternative is now thousands of deaths or decades of oppression. Think of the children, you said? If so, then it is even more understandable why Ukrainians would prefer the former. — Jabberwock
If the country's electoral process is erratic, but not fully dominated by the regime, if the country has democractic judicial oversight (Ukrainian courts were instrumental both in the Kuchma case and Yushchenko revote), well established tradition of grassroot movements (at least since the Orange Revolution), local governments which are not hand picked by the central authority, press that enjoys more freedom, that is. It might help if the opposition politicians are not routinely murdered or jailed, journalists murdered or beaten up.
But Russia does not have any of that. — Jabberwock
Rule of law
Security and safety
Movement
Religion
Association, assembly, and civil society
Expression and information
Relationships
Size of government
Legal system and property rights
Sound money
Freedom to trade internationally
Regulation — https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021
No, they are not, you have specifically excluded 'human freedom measures' from 'facts' - 'measures of autocracy and democracy are not objective'. — Jabberwock
Of course it is, if your only other choice has zero chance of success, then you take the one that has slightly above zero. Your plan has zero chance of achieving the 'desired effect'. — Isaac
They would if the alternative had 0% chance of success and 100% chance that the world would be plunged into tyranny. Again, if you want to talk about probabilities, then you're comparing options and their consequences. — Isaac
I've cited the data. It ranked lower than Russia in the Human Freedom Index. It now ranks higher. It made progress from lower to higher in eight years. That's all that's needed to show Russia can do the same. — Isaac
Nor have you. In fact your proposed course of action 100% guarantees war. So neither of our options are distinguished by a guarantee to avoid war. I'm suggesting war could be avoided by not resisting (militarily) when tyrants attempt to occupy territory but instead focus on removing the tyrant from power so that it doesn't matter much which country owns what. You're suggesting we use war to contain tyrants in the country they're in and by losing said war, weaken their rule. As far as 'avoiding war', your strategy literally cites it as a tool, so it will 100% not avoid war. My strategy might avoid war. In that one simple metric 'avoiding war', it's clear that even if my strategy had only 0.000001% chance of working it's better than yours which has 0% chance of avoiding war seeing as it involves war.
This is, of course, a good reason not to use stupidly simplistic metrics like 'avoid war' or 'secure voting rights', but rather take a more holistic approach which tries to maximise human well-being throughout the reach of our consequences. — Isaac
Oppression only works because most people prefer it to death. If most people preferred death to oppression then they would all resist it until dead and the oppressor would have no population left to oppress. If an oppressor puts a gun to your head and says "jump", you jump, because you prefer that to just saying "no" and getting shot. It's an absolute fact of human nature that we marginally prefer oppression to death because there's a chance of getting out of oppression. Crimea has been under Russian oppression for eight years. Why has the entire population not simply killed themselves to escape the oppression? Because they'd prefer to live, and hope. — Isaac
It's not as if the Ukrainians have these two stark choices. Ukraine outside of Russia is hardly a bed of roses and with crippling debt and a destroyed economy, it'll be much worse. The human rights record of Ukrainian-occupied Donbas is practically identical to that of Russian-occupied Crimea. You might have bought into the propagandist fantasy that Ukraine was some beacon of democratic light before the invasion, but the evidence shows otherwise.
The choice faced (in the frame you've used above) is thousands more dead vs slightly worse levels of freedom). — Isaac
... as do most indices. Ukraine was worse than Russia around the time of Maidan. The factors you cite are already taken account of. Ukraine came from a situation where it was worse than Russia in all of those measures put together, to one where it was better than Russia, in eight years. — Isaac
(119 is smaller than 134, that's not an opinion) — Isaac
But wait a minute... You wrote: 'An example might be the Human Freedom Index which had Ukraine ranking 134 in 2014, below Russia at 119'. But the very source you have provided says something else: Ukraine 114 (score 6.57), Russia 123 (score 6.24).
Did you really think I would not look at the data? — Jabberwock
Not if the expected likely consequences are worse than if you did not take that action. — Jabberwock
we should compare options and their consequences — Jabberwock
We should abandon the discussion of consequences based on a single metric, like the body count, and consider the overall consequences. — Jabberwock
if people believed that oppression is better than risk of death, like you do, then there would be no armed rebellions at all. As you are unable to delineate the boundaries of concessions, we can assume that in all provided cases of liberation wars and revolutions you would argue for leaving the oppression as the better option (because your only metrics is the death count). — Jabberwock
tell me when the armed fight with oppression would be preferable. — Jabberwock
If you want to discuss the consequences, let us do that. — Jabberwock
Eight years ago from now is 2015. I assume you can keep up with the basic maths.
So I'm comparing Ukraine in 2015 to Russia now. — Isaac
Ukraine score in 2015: 6.34 — Jabberwock
Yes, I know those bits in blue, those are the exact links I have used to get the data I have so nicely presented. — Jabberwock
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.